What can you tell us about the autumn statement? She asked, hopefully.

Well, I can tell you that now that inflation is down below 5%, we are laying the foundations for economic growth, but the autumn statement will focus on boosting growth, and we'll do so by trying to stimulate more business investment, but also increase workforce participation. This, by the way, builds on the spring budget, which did that too. We saw the introduction of capital allowances to stimulate business investment and childcare reform to increase workforce participation.

Will the statement be able to appeal to both Red Wall voters and Blue Wall voters?

I think if you look at our policy program, we have policies within the Treasury that are helping to stimulate economic growth around the country. Just today, for example, we've announced that our third anchor tenant has been secured for an investment zone in West Yorkshire. This is where the Treasury is providing extra funding to stimulate new investment into areas around the country outside of London and the Southeast. I think you'll see a range of policies and announcements which will help stimulate growth, which aren't just on the financial side, but are on other things as well.

Okay, like tax cuts?

Well, we've always been clear that inflation is our number one target. We've got to get that down. We've still got to get it down further.

By the way. We're doing this dance, aren't we? You're not going to tell me anything.

Well, I'm afraid I can't comment ahead of a fiscal event, but we've always been clear that.

Inflation is the target. Let me tell you about this. John Glenn, former Senior Tories Minister who you know, says winter fuel allowance should be means tested. Who might that appeal to?

Well, we're not going to be touching the winter fuels allowance.

-that's very clear. -you're not going to -try to test it?

We have no plans to change the winter fuel allowance, but we've got a strong record and supporting pensioners as you know. We will always stand by our pensioners to ensure that they have a dignified retirement and security.

To retirement. That's the Blue Wall vote is sorted out. Let me talk about Rwanda then instead. How can you guarantee that flights will go to Rwanda during the course of this government?

Well, the Supreme Court judgment didn't say that deporting asylum seekers to a safe third country was illegal.

But Rwanda is not safe. They said Rwanda.

Is not safe. In their judgment, they have said that they have concerns about some of the elements of the Rwandan asylum system. We're not in a position to disagree, but accept, and we completely accept that. And so the Prime Minister has been clear what we're going to do on the back of that is have a new treaty with Rwanda where we will guarantee that Rwanda will not send asylum seekers and individuals to countries where they could face persecution. So we'll put that as a guarantee. And we'll look at legislation in the House of Commons, which will state that we believe that Rwanda is a safe country. And so if we do those two things, we can address the specific concerns of the.

Supreme Court. So just to clarify, the highest court in the land says Rwanda is not a safe country, so as a result, it would be unlawful to send refugees, migrants there. And you're saying we're going to pass the law to say it is.

We've got a new treaty with Rwanda in the mix at the moment being worked on, which will provide assurance to the courts, to the Supreme Court, that asylum seekers will not be moved to countries and face persecution. Like I said, we don't agree with the judgment, but we accept it and we're going to pass this treaty soon to address their concerns. The law will basically state that British parliamentarians regard Rwanda as a safe country.

Why not use a different third-party country? Because the laws are not objecting to the fact that you can use a third-party country while these migrants are being protested. Just not that one. Why not choose another one?

Well, we do believe we've come a long way with Rwanda in government. We've been working very closely with them over the last 15 months. The Supreme Court were basing their judgment on evidence from 15 months ago that was supplied to the Court of appeal. And in that time since then, we have been working very closely with the Rwandan government, and we are confident that the Rwandan government can provide the assurances, we can provide the assurances to the Supreme Court that they have robust institutions in place to ensure that there isn't this refoolment, which is essentially sending asylum seekers back to a country where.

They face -Every learned piece of essay or whatever that I've read in the papers and otherwise over the weekend, I said, This is dead in the water. Why do you still think it isn't?

Because the Supreme Court has some very specific concerns that we feel that we can address through this new treaty with Rwanda, as well as a new law in Parliament. So if we can address those specific concerns, then we're.

Very confident. So when do we expect planes to go?

Well, we've been clear we want our planes to go as soon as possible. But when do you expect them to go? Well, we've got to sort this out first. I'm not going to put a date on planes departing.

Well, the Prime Minister said by the spring. Are you still sticking to that?

We will act as quickly as we possibly can. If it was up to me, I'd be sending planes now, but we have to address- And break the law? No, but as I said, we have to address the concerns of the Supreme Court, and that's what we're doing with.

This treaty. Because your deputy chairman, as you know, said, Let's break the law.

Well, I'm not saying that. He doesn't speak for you. And the Prime Minister is not saying that.

He doesn't speak for you when he says that.

I am not saying that. What I'm saying is that we are going to address the concerns of the Supreme Court, and I believe that we can do that through this.

New treaty. Talk to me about what we're seeing in Gaza. The latest death tale we're being told by Palestinian authorities is that 13,000 people have died. Five and a half thousand of those are children. When is enough enough?

It's heartbreaking to see the death and suffering for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are victims of Hamas, just as the Israelis were. We are very supportive of the Israeli government to tackle this terrorist organization who are inflicting so much pain and suffering. We know that Hamas have been using civilians as human shields that is completely, obviously completely in contravention of any humanitarian law that exists in the world. We have to stand by Israel to tackle and destroy Hamas because ultimately, they are the ones that have caused this absolutely horrendous situation.

Yeah. Talk to me about British hostages. We know there were some British hostages. We don't know their fate as of yet. We know that according to latest sources, there could well be a ceasefire of some description while hostages are released in their scores over the next few days. Are we in any negotiation expecting some of those to be British?

We do know that a number of British citizens, I think it's 14, have been confirmed dead as a result of the Hamas terrorist attack, and there are a small number of British citizens that have been reported missing and possibly held hostage. We are continuing to engage with the Israeli government in terms of their actions and the work that they're doing to secure the release of hostages, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment further for security reasons.

We do- But is it reasonable to perhaps hope against hope that those negotiations could include Brits?

For the small number of British citizens that are reported missing, if they are held hostage, then we absolutely want to see them released and call on Hamas.

And we are working with- Is there any active negotiation.

Around that? It's not appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the engagement that we're having, but it is important to stress that this is in the gift of Hamas. Hamas are the ones who are holding these hostages, and we just call on Hamas to release them as soon as possible. In terms of you alluded to it, we have called for a humanitarian pause, and we're pleased to see some humanitarian pauses for a number of hours take place to get aid into Gaza. We hope that that will continue, but we continue to maintain our position that a ceasefire is not the appropriate action here because that would result in Hamas being able to rebuild.

It depends who you're talking to. I mean, the latest we're hearing is, Five-day ceasefire, is the words that is being used as far as the US is concerned. However you cut it, it means people not fighting while some humanitarian aid goes in and some hostages come out. Given what you've heard over the weekend, how hopeful are you that that will happen?

We want humanitarian pauses to ensure that we can get aid into.

-call it what you like. How hopeful are you that it's going to happen?

We're already seeing limited pauses to enable aid to get through into Gaza. But let me be very clear, a ceasefire would not be practical with an organization in Hamas who've said that they wouldn't respect it. They said they want more attacks on the Israelis. And so a ceasefire would not serve the purpose that some think it would. But we do believe that we need to get aid into Hamas to support those, as you say, children and families that are suffering right now at the hands of Hamas.

Okay, what's the top headline from Wednesday?

We're going to be supporting and boosting growth in our economy.

I knew you wouldn't tell me. I knew you wouldn't tell me. I win five pounds from my team. It's good to see you, as always, Minster. Thank you very much indeed.